Specifications and Feature Set Comparison

Prior to getting into the performance evaluation, we will take a look at the specifications of the 6 TB HGST Deskstar NAS and see how it compares against the other NAS-specific hard drives that we have looked at before.

The Deskstar NAS sports a SATA III (6 Gbps) interface. As is customary for the high capacity drives in this market segment, it can only emulate 512-byte sectors (natively 4K). The interesting aspect is the presence of a 128 MB cache similar to the Seagate drives, and unlike the WD Red. The obvious selling point for its price target is the 7200 RPM speed, which should easily give it the lead in most benchmarks over the WD Red. The other aspects (such as the URE ratings, MTBF, warranty etc.) are as expected. The table below presents the data for the drive against the others in our evaluation database.

Comparative HDD Specifications
Model Number HDN726060ALE610 HDN726060ALE610
Interface SATA 6 Gbps SATA 6 Gbps
Sector Size / AF 512E 512E
Rotational Speed 7200 RPM 7200 RPM
Cache 128 MB 128 MB
Rated Load / Unload Cycles 600 K 600 K
Non-Recoverable Read Errors / Bits Read < 1 in 1014 < 1 in 1014
MTBF 1 M 1 M
Rated Workload N/A N/A
Operating Temperature Range 5 to 60 C 5 to 60 C
Acoustics (Seek Average - dBA) 29 dBA 29 dBA
Physical Parameters 14.7 x 10.16 x 2.61 cm; 715 g 14.7 x 10.16 x 2.61 cm; 715 g
Warranty 3 years 3 years
Price (in USD, as-on-date) $300 $300

A high level overview of the various supported SATA features is provided by HD Tune Pro.

We get a better idea of the supported features using FinalWire's AIDA64 system report. The table below summarizes the extra information generated by AIDA64 (that is not already provided by HD Tune Pro).

Comparative HDD Features
DMA Setup Auto-Activate Supported; Disabled Supported; Disabled
Extended Power Conditions Supported; Enabled Supported; Enabled
Free-Fall Control Not Supported Not Supported
General Purpose Logging Supported; Enabled Supported; Enabled
In-Order Data Delivery Supported; Disabled Supported; Disabled
NCQ Priority Information Supported Supported
Phy Event Counters Supported Supported
Release Interrupt Not Supported Not Supported
Sense Data Reporting Supported; Disabled Supported; Disabled
Software Settings Preservation Supported; Enabled Supported; Enabled
Streaming Supported; Enabled Supported; Enabled
Tagged Command Queuing Not Supported Not Supported
Introduction and Testbed Setup Performance - Raw Drives
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • ganeshts - Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - link

    There is no 6 TB WD Red Pro. In addition, this is meant for tower form-factor NAS units (that is why the name 'Deskstar'). The warranty and MTBF / URE ratings are closer to the WD Red than the WD Red Pro. For the rackmount units (which the WD Red Pro targets), HGST suggests the Ultrastar lineup.
  • Samus - Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - link

    initial large capacity drives are generally slow, especially in the case of a next-gen platter density increase, because the technology is not refined enough for higher spindle speeds. the sole exception are HGST's 8TB Helium drives, which are theoretically capable of 12TB capacities, but since its new technology, they want to play it conservatively and see how the 8TB reliability pans out.
  • hlmcompany - Wednesday, December 24, 2014 - link

    The WD Red Pro and the HGST Deskstar NAS have the same RPM, at 4TB the same cache size, also the same MTBF and the same Load/Unload cycles. Their data sheets describe similar operations: HGST - 1-5 bays, WD - 1-16 bays. The real difference is the warranty and URE. Yes, WD markets the Red Pro for rackmount use, but you'll see that WD doesn't use this drive in their own rackmount system or in their Arkeia rackmount systems - they use RE and SE drives for that purpose. Based on this spec data, I view it important to include the WD Red Pro in this comparison.
  • hlmcompany - Wednesday, December 24, 2014 - link

    Also, if the HGST Deskstar NAS is not designed for a rackmount system, why would you test it one? Simply put, because there is no difference.
  • ganeshts - Wednesday, December 24, 2014 - link

    'rackmount' target vs 'tower form factor' : This has got more to do with the firmware aspects related to vibration tolerance. Rackmount system drives are engineered for more tolerance during extended use. It is more a reliability aspect.

    We chose a rackmount to keep things consistent across multiple drives. Our 'extended' tests only consists of running 24x7 for about a week (and only with three drives in the rack unit) - vibration tolerance doesn't affect our testbed setup much.

    We are reviewing the 6 TB version here. If WD were to put out a 6 TB WD Red Pro, we would use that as a comparison point. As it stands, comparing a 4 TB drive and a 6 TB drive is like comparing apples and oranges.
  • Wwhat - Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - link

    So HGST is what was hitachi and is now owned by western digital, so it's a WD drive really. Got it.

    You might have introduced it like that, but let's purch that thought and continue.
  • ganeshts - Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - link

    Despite WD's purchase of HGST, the manufacturing facilities and product lines are still separate because China is yet to sanction the purchase fully:


    This is the reason why they have different products targeting the same market segment.. one from WD and one from HGST (for example, WD Red and HGST Deskstar NAS). So, this is NOT REALLY A WD drive, as you claim.

    We have been covering HGST for quite some time (the WD acquisition was made in early 2012) : http://anandtech.com/tag/hgst : The way the products have been introduced in each of the reviews has not changed since then, as you can see for yourself.
  • jardows2 - Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - link

    You, sir, are a troll. If you are so cynical about Purch acquiring AnandTech, go somewhere else. Anyone who has been following hard drives for the last two years knows HGST is owned by WD, but that they are separate entities. There is no need for anyone to point out the obvious.
  • chrnochime - Tuesday, December 23, 2014 - link

    And we all know how brilliant TH is these days....
    Go read this and be enlightened by how great Purch is:


    start from post #34, and read down. See how they put OCN as "renowned brands" even when they don't own OCN.
  • Doh! - Wednesday, December 24, 2014 - link

    How does "renowned brands" translate into "ownership"? They could be simply doing advertising work on OCN. When I checked out that Purch webpage you mentioned, all I saw was a network of websites for their advertising "partners" listed as renowned brands. Not a single indication of ownership is existent.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now